<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 14 2008, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 14 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 14 2008, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>College programs don't need any more help, they just need to be smarter with their recruiting. Too many colleges go after that one-and-done prospect hoping for the "Carmelo Anthony" storyline and not really planning for the long-term. Sure you should make a run for those top prospects, but good programs fill up the rest of the roster with players that will need a few years in college. Just look at the way UCLA and UNC have recruited over the past couple years. They recruit great college players, not necessarily great NBA players. Increasing the age limit would only be hindering the development of those really good players that truly should be one-and-done. Look at the freshman that were drafted this past year (Oden, Durant, Conley, Wright, Hawes, Young, etc.) and do you really see any that absolutely needed that extra year of college? They may struggle at times during their first year, but they all show signs of being legit NBA players and they're benefiting more by playing at the NBA level. At some point, its in the players' long-term interests to start developing in an NBA environment and playing level as opposed to a college one.</div> Why even keep Oden and Durant in College for any amount of time then? This rule was put in place to prevent raw talent from being wasted on the bench. I think making sure the majority of players are at least fully grown (20-21) isn't a terrible idea. I don't know the exact stats on that though, so this is a tough issue to resolve. </div> The whole point of the limit was to curb the amount of players that were jumping to the pros before they were ready. I think that's worked. We might have to wait a year for the Odens, Durants, etc. but we have far fewer Gerald Greens. But that's why I don't see the need for an increase. It seems to me like a good balance has already been achieved. The players that are leaving early are the ones who deserve that chance and have gotten about as much as they can from the college level. Of course, my opinion will be put to the test with this year's draft class, because it looks like there'll be a lot of freshmen declaring. I think the next two years should give us a better indication of whether or not the age limit should be increased. As it is right now, I don't see the need. </div> Yes I don't see the need to rush into anything. After some more analysis of players entering the league occurs, then we can come to a more definitive conclusion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (THE DADDY @ Mar 14 2008, 01:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It needs to be done. Don't know if it's been said, but with the current system, you can go to school for 1 year and never step foot in the classroom. Go to 0 classes first semester, 0.0 GPA, academic probation second semester, go to 0 classes, 0.0 GPA, academically ineligible for your sophomore year, and you just jump to the pros.</div> Shhhh. That's the beginning of the new West Virginia recruiting pitch!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 14 2008, 04:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wasn't even expecting 20 a night. I don't know if you even read my post, but his defense is shit, his rebounding isn't there, and he has little post game. And my god, those percentages suck. 20 doesn't matter if you're throwing up 20+ shots a night, with the worst percentages, and rarely going to the line. He needed to stay in college to refine his game.</div> Shock horror, a rookie struggles with the physical and defensive aspects of the NBA! He has shot a lot better and gone to the line more in the last month, so he is learning, without much veteran guidance. He needs to add weight and choose his shots better, but that will come with experience (amazing that). What exactly was he going to learn staying another year? He led the nation in scoring and rebounding (or close enough to it), shot 50/40 from the field/arc and generally dominated. He'll learn more from his rookie year than he would have at Texas for a sophomore season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir Desmond @ Mar 14 2008, 10:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What exactly was he going to learn staying another year? He led the nation in scoring and rebounding (or close enough to it), shot 50/40 from the field/arc and generally dominated. He'll learn more from his rookie year than he would have at Texas for a sophomore season.</div> Increasing the age minimum would serve, in theory, as a way to help the majority of NBA players. It wouldn't matter in that case, that a player like Durant, would have to stay an extra year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 14 2008, 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Increasing the age minimum would serve, in theory, as a way to help the majority of NBA players. It wouldn't matter in that case, that a player like Durant, would have to stay an extra year.</div> Thing is, you're going to get Gerald Greens no matter what the age limit is. It's part and parcel.
I think to raise it wouldn't be a horrible idea at all. Get these kids an education. Like Gerald Green, has a high school education, if that, and what is he going to do after basketball? Work at Burger King? He could go back to college, but that's it for him. I just feel that these kids need at least some form of degree or back-fall after basketball if something happens. I know it's unlikely in a case like Durant or Oden, but it happens.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir Desmond @ Mar 14 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 14 2008, 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Increasing the age minimum would serve, in theory, as a way to help the majority of NBA players. It wouldn't matter in that case, that a player like Durant, would have to stay an extra year.</div> Thing is, you're going to get Gerald Greens no matter what the age limit is. It's part and parcel. </div> I wouldn't say so because of things like puberty and being immature. Some kids aren't prepared for the steep learning curve, and people's game grow in College.
I think age limits are necessary because in a tough, contact sport, there's no way a 19-year-old can win the MVP. It's important to go to college for two years and reach incredibly late puberty and finalize emotional maturity and blah, blah, blah.
1. It agrevates me to no end that college players are not fairly compensated. The NCAA is a freakin monopoly and a half. How about free market capitalism determining what their payed- What a concept! 2. As far as the NBA goes, Stern clearly made the change for marketing purposes. Looking at Durant and Oden last year, some people knew about Oden, few knew about Durant except Draftniks, but they still would gone 1-2 *or at least Top 5 for the sake of argument. Look at the draft history, teams got better and better through the years at drafting High School players, so its not as if they, NBA needed protection from the risk of taking a High Schooler. And yes I know Gerald Green is out of a contract now, but everyone who follows the league pretty much agrees that he has the talent, its more of a matter of work ethic and motivation. And whats to say that this wouldn't have happened with a college player, or that another #18 pick would have made it any further. 3. I don't know where people get off saying that players that have the talent would be better going to college. Exactly how? Have you thought this through? Umm, lets see your practice with the team/coaches is limited, you have to worry at least to some extent about academics, and the college game is so much different than the pros. Quote by SI article in 2003. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It's hard to imagine how a year or two in college could have made these players any better. "Everybody who said [that entering the NBA from high school] was a bad idea was just completely wrong," says Bryant. "I learned so much in my first two seasons in the NBA. It's tough to believe that college would have done that for me." American teens are also likely to fall behind their European counterparts by attending college. The NCAA restricts practice time to 20 hours per week, while players overseas face no limits on the hours they can spend in the gym. Then again, all this could be moot if a future LeBron challenges the proposed rule in court. "You tell him he's got to go to the CBA or somewhere and make $35,000," says Timberwolves coach Flip Saunders. "How is that going to fly?"</div> 4. And yeah, I see players going to europe if the limit goes to 20.
this has nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with restoring the competitive balance in the league. the draft is designed so that the worst teams can receive IMMEDIATE help. HOWEVER, when the best players in the draft are 19 years old, the worst teams have a problem: If they take the players that can provide immediate help, they get inferior players. If they take the players with the most natural talent, the team won't improve, because it will take 2-3 years for these players to develop--right around the time they are ready to become free agents. What happens is that the better teams--the ones with draft picks in the 20s--can afford to take huge risks on young players that might not be ready to contribute for a few years, and they can afford to wait. As a result, the bad teams never get better, and the good teams never become bad.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 21 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What happens is that the better teams--the ones with draft picks in the 20s--can afford to take huge risks on young players that might not be ready to contribute for a few years, and they can afford to wait.</div> I agree that happens, but how significant is the effect. Like I said before teams were getting better at drafting the high schoolers, so its not liking there taking on much more risk. Look at the more recent draft classes 03,04,05 vs 99,00,01. Generally, the best players are high schoolers, or, now freshmen. There is simply no reason for them to stay in college. Were the sonics/blazers worse for taking Oden/Durant vs a more polished player that has a lower ceiling? Sure, those types of players usually won't be as good right away, but you don't want to get stuck in a situation your like the Charlotte Bobcats, and you mainly take older players in the draft. Those guys never give you a chance to become a contender; they only make you marginally better. If your absolutely insisent upon significantly reducing the risk, then raise the age to 20, and develop a quality minor league/farm system or steer players to europe. Competitive balance has more to do with management or lack there of the GMs involved. And Stern/Owners unwillingness to go to a balanced scheduele (w/ no conferences).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1. It agrevates me to no end that college players are not fairly compensated. The NCAA is a freakin monopoly and a half. How about free market capitalism determining what their payed- What a concept!</div> College players are paid, and to say that they receive no monetary compensation for playing is an insult to everyone who has to struggle to pay for college.
I don't buy that Jigga. That college scholarship is worth a lot, but what value does it hold to a person who's looking to play basketball for a living?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 21 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't buy that Jigga. That college scholarship is worth a lot, but what value does it hold to a person who's looking to play basketball for a living?</div> The only means of getting drafted outside of living in europe for a year or two? With high school players not being able to get drafted the opportunity to play college basketball becomes the primary platform for making the NBA. Now there's value to that scholarship; up to 120-160k. The value is still retained for a player who wants to leave after 3 years without finishing, its just that they don't take advantage of it. I don't think the NCAA should give more than this immense amount of scholarship just because a young man makes the mistake of undervaluing an education. The argument for additional compensation then inherently devalues academics for a collegiate athlete, and further serves to undermine the notion that the majority of college basketball players will not make the NBA.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 21 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>this has nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with restoring the competitive balance in the league. the draft is designed so that the worst teams can receive IMMEDIATE help. HOWEVER, when the best players in the draft are 19 years old, the worst teams have a problem: If they take the players that can provide immediate help, they get inferior players. If they take the players with the most natural talent, the team won't improve, because it will take 2-3 years for these players to develop--right around the time they are ready to become free agents. What happens is that the better teams--the ones with draft picks in the 20s--can afford to take huge risks on young players that might not be ready to contribute for a few years, and they can afford to wait. As a result, the bad teams never get better, and the good teams never become bad.</div> Tough nuts! If your own free agents want to take a pay cut to get away from you, you don't deserve to get better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 15 2008, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think age limits are necessary because in a tough, contact sport, there's no way a 19-year-old can win the MVP. It's important to go to college for two years and reach incredibly late puberty and finalize emotional maturity and blah, blah, blah.</div> Jesus man, it was just a theory. I never said I was 100% right. It's all conjecture, what the **** do any of us know.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 21 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 15 2008, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think age limits are necessary because in a tough, contact sport, there's no way a 19-year-old can win the MVP. It's important to go to college for two years and reach incredibly late puberty and finalize emotional maturity and blah, blah, blah.</div> Jesus man, it was just a theory. I never said I was 100% right. It's all conjecture, what the **** do any of us know. </div> I don't see how our knowledge has any effect on the NBA's policies. Their policies are based on what makes them money and what they can get the PA to agree to and that's it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The argument for additional compensation then inherently devalues academics for a collegiate athlete, and further serves to undermine the notion that the majority of college basketball players will not make the NBA.</div> I not exactly sure what you mean, maybe you could explain further. My first point was that players should be compensated what they are truly worth, not what the NCAA thinks they're worth or what they want to "make" them worth for purposes of exploiting them. http://seekingalpha.com/article/69285-marc...-no-matter-what
